Oregon Instant Background Approval

[lucusloc]

So it goes back to time and a monetary value.

It's not a denial if it was caused by the individual's poor life decisions.

That's like someone arguing, "I only want to work 8 hours a week and live off the government and have saved up enough money to buy a Hi-point. But…. I don't have the money or time to wait for my BGC so my right is being denied."

Work harder. I don't feel sorry for them.

Now who I do feel sorry for is the mom who just had a nasty divorce and the ex-husband is threatening her life and she is forced to wait a set amount of time before she can get her pistol to defend herself and her kids. And during to gap in time she is reliant on a piece of paper to protect her.

So yes I agree there are varying degrees to this. I have no issue with having to pay a minimal fee but being forced to wait a set period of time is an issue. But when it's ran by the government you better have nothing but time. Even though that wait may end up in the loss of life. That blood is on the hands of the government and those that voted in that legislation.

I have much more of an issue with time than I do with money.

To put it bluntly I do not care who you feel sorry for. Who you feel sorry for is a purely subjective benchmark that has no business in policy decisions. This country has been sliding into a accelerating decline precisely because we have forgone adherence to basic principle and started voting and legislating based on "feels". This is how we get all those "feel good" policies with a million unintended and incredibly destructive side effects that have obliterated entire swaths of our economy and country.

The simple fact of the matter is that even a small monetary or time tax can be more than some can bear. Who cares what the reason is that they cannot bear it. The reasons are legion and irrelevant to boot. The questions are "if someone cannot pay the tax was their right implicitly denied" and "should we be imposing such a tax in the first place"? These answers may change depending on the activity in question. If the activity in question is building a pool or an amusement park, I think everyone would be fine with some imposed burden to help fund basic governmental functions (taxes) or drive behavior away from less desirable outcomes. (e.g. imposing basic pool safety or amusement park noise abatement regulatory policies). The question here in this conversation is "how much should we be burdening a basic human right to self defense, self reliance and self determination, which is the base principle from which the right to arms is built on?" "$30 is not a huge burden by my standard" is not a great benchmark answer to that question. It ignores the fact that there are lot of people less fortunate than yourself out there, for whom that $30 is an implicit denial to their right to effective self defense. I bet we could even find people in that category for whom you would "feel sorry for", as if that should matter at all.

We have to remember that even the tiniest burdens on a right will cut someone off. This is inevitable. The question is if that burden can be justified with some larger societal benefit that would outweigh the burden on the individual. Mandating that all voting be in person at designated polls will burden those who have mobility limitations, for example. The upshot is that such voting could significantly enhance voting security, thus providing a significantly higher social benefit that outweighs the imposition on a limited number of people.

So what broader social benefit does a costly and time consuming BGC offer? Can it be shown that such a system significantly impacts the availability of arms to criminals, and that this reduction in arms drives a corresponding reduction in over all criminal activity and severity, for example? If such a thing can be shown then the argument that BGCs are a valid and necessary government function can be made. If such a societal benefit cannot be shown, then is not the entire edifice solely predicated on implicitly denying the exercise of this right to the people who cannot afford to pay it? Ergo it is indeed a denial of a right by design and principle, even if it is not so broad as to cover everyone, only those who cannot afford to pay (in that moment or in general, it does not matter). If it has no other societal purpose can it be anything but?

 

[Member 53328]

To put it bluntly I do not care who you feel sorry for. Who you feel sorry for is a purely subjective benchmark that has no business in policy decisions. This country has been sliding into a accelerating decline precisely because we have forgone adherence to basic principle and started voting and legislating based on "feels". This is how we get all those "feel good" policies with a million unintended and incredibly destructive side effects that have obliterated entire swaths of our economy and country.

The simple fact of the matter is that even a small monetary or time tax can be more than some can bear. Who cares what the reason is that they cannot bear it. The reasons are legion and irrelevant to boot. The questions are "if someone cannot pay the tax was their right implicitly denied" and "should we be imposing such a tax in the first place"? These answers may change depending on the activity in question. If the activity in question is building a pool or an amusement park, I think everyone would be fine with some imposed burden to help fund basic governmental functions (taxes) or drive behavior away from less desirable outcomes. (e.g. imposing basic pool safety or amusement park noise abatement regulatory policies). The question here in this conversation is "how much should we be burdening a basic human right to self defense, self reliance and self determination, which is the base principle from which the right to arms is built on?" "$30 is not a huge burden by my standard" is not a great benchmark answer to that question. It ignores the fact that there are lot of people less fortunate than yourself out there, for whom that $30 is an implicit denial to their right to effective self defense. I bet we could even find people in that category for whom you would "feel sorry for", as if that should matter at all.

We have to remember that even the tiniest burdens on a right will cut someone off. This is inevitable. The question is if that burden can be justified with some larger societal benefit that would outweigh the burden on the individual. Mandating that all voting be in person at designated polls will burden those who have mobility limitations, for example. The upshot is that such voting could significantly enhance voting security, thus providing a significantly higher social benefit that outweighs the imposition on a limited number of people.

So what broader social benefit does a costly and time consuming BGC offer? Can it be shown that such a system significantly impacts the availability of arms to criminals, and that this reduction in arms drives a corresponding reduction in over all criminal activity and severity, for example? If such a thing can be shown then the argument that BGCs are a valid and necessary government function can be made. If such a societal benefit cannot be shown, then is not the entire edifice solely predicated on implicitly denying the exercise of this right to the people who cannot afford to pay it? Ergo it is indeed a denial of a right by design and principle, even if it is not so broad as to cover everyone, only those who cannot afford to pay (in that moment or in general, it does not matter). If it has no other societal purpose can it be anything but?

And to put it bluntly. I couldn't care less about what you think or have to say. lol.

 

[lucusloc]

People in the gun store can see it which alone is reason not enough to put it on there. Also I don't give it out for anything if it can be possibly avoided.

Fair point. I am a bit more jaded I guess. I work in the banking industry (security, to be precise), so I see SSNs all over the place all the time. It is my default assumption that everyone's SSN has been compromised to an indefensible degree anyway, and while you can certainly argue for minimizing that exposure (that is basically my entire job, after all), I have come to think of "SNN security" as a commodity, to be traded for benefit whenever it makes sense to you as an individual to do so. It really shouldn't be this way, but here we are with SSNs being necessary for basically every monetary transaction ever. What is one more in the pile really?

 

[GrayGoose]

 

[lucusloc]

And to put it prompt. I couldn't care less about what you think or have to say. lol.

And yet here you are telling me about it. Funny how we all like to make our opinions known. I will continue to advocate for opinions founded in basic, well reasoned principle. You can, of course, continue to formulate them however you see fit. I simply hope that they do not become the basis for yet more nonsensical legislation in the future.

 

[Jcon268]

I would never put social on a 4473. It's not required. Why give gov more info than bare minimum required?

I mean, it's information they can get access to anyways if they really wanted it.
The thought is usually that the SSN distinguishes you from anyone with the same name that might give you an unfavorable result. The address is usually enough to distinguish you though. Perhaps accessing the database of SSN information is what adds the delay versus just using the address.
I thought I had a unique name because my last name is uncommon... it turns out there are multiple of "me" in the same state. I doubt any of them have lived in the same address as me.

 

[OldBroad44]

I went into Tick Licker-Corvallis Oregon to take possession of the new old 6.5" SW 629-3 Classic I bought in a Gun broker auction with them as the FFL. Background check went through instantly. They told me that's unusual these days. Most are taking two hours to three days they say.

Today is Wed 11/29/2023. I used only my CHP as identification. And did not give my SS#. I go in in the mid morning in the middle of the week deliberately. Figure any backlog or ques might be less than the beginning or end of the week. At least that's how it works with the post office. Go there on a Friday toward closing and you spend half an hour waiting. And lots of businesses send stuff out on Monday, especially Monday AM. So there's a serious line at the PO near opening on Monday too. Tuesday through Thursday well before closing there's usually just two to four people in line ahead of you.

 

[ma96782]

Gov. KOTEX says.....



Aloha, Mark

 

[eustace_stelio]

I would never put social on a 4473. It's not required. Why give gov more info than bare minimum required?

I did because I figured it'd help to possibly get an instant. Nope.

I mean it's not like the gov doesn't already have my ss# seeing as they're the ones that assigned it to begin with

 

[ma96782]

OMG. SS# or not.





AND.....get them onboard for the ride.



Aloha, Mark

 

[Koda]

It was a simple phone number that gave a simple "yes/no" to the question "is this person a prohibited person?" based on a few pieces of common ID information (usually name, addy and DL number). Guess who shot it down? Yeah, all the big anti-gun groups of the day. They shot it down because it was a UBC system that was less burdensome than NICS, and they only want to implement a system that is more burdensome. Anything else will be killed by them for "reasons."

IIRC a similar thing happened in Oregon when we passed the current BGC system. Local gun rights group proposed an alternative and it got shot down in flames.

Last years 114 measure is more evidence they wont stop making things more burdensom, they dont want a system that works, they want to remove the right. The media never mentioned that 114 basically would have made Oregon a "may issue" state... just to buy a gun not even carry a gun.

 

[nomad]

My FFL is using the new portal. I was #215 of 1,115 in the queue last Sat.. My transfers have always been instant.

 

[sparky923]

T

My FFL is using the new portal. I was #215 of 1,115 in the queue last Sat.. My transfers have always been instant.

The portal obviously just made it worse. ;(

 

[orygun]

T

The portal obviously just made it worse. ;(

We're from the Government and are here to "help".

 

[P7M13]

To put it bluntly I do not care who you feel sorry for. Who you feel sorry for is a purely subjective benchmark that has no business in policy decisions. This country has been sliding into a accelerating decline precisely because we have forgone adherence to basic principle and started voting and legislating based on "feels". This is how we get all those "feel good" policies with a million unintended and incredibly destructive side effects that have obliterated entire swaths of our economy and country.

The simple fact of the matter is that even a small monetary or time tax can be more than some can bear. Who cares what the reason is that they cannot bear it. The reasons are legion and irrelevant to boot. The questions are "if someone cannot pay the tax was their right implicitly denied" and "should we be imposing such a tax in the first place"? These answers may change depending on the activity in question. If the activity in question is building a pool or an amusement park, I think everyone would be fine with some imposed burden to help fund basic governmental functions (taxes) or drive behavior away from less desirable outcomes. (e.g. imposing basic pool safety or amusement park noise abatement regulatory policies). The question here in this conversation is "how much should we be burdening a basic human right to self defense, self reliance and self determination, which is the base principle from which the right to arms is built on?" "$30 is not a huge burden by my standard" is not a great benchmark answer to that question. It ignores the fact that there are lot of people less fortunate than yourself out there, for whom that $30 is an implicit denial to their right to effective self defense. I bet we could even find people in that category for whom you would "feel sorry for", as if that should matter at all.

We have to remember that even the tiniest burdens on a right will cut someone off. This is inevitable. The question is if that burden can be justified with some larger societal benefit that would outweigh the burden on the individual. Mandating that all voting be in person at designated polls will burden those who have mobility limitations, for example. The upshot is that such voting could significantly enhance voting security, thus providing a significantly higher social benefit that outweighs the imposition on a limited number of people.

So what broader social benefit does a costly and time consuming BGC offer? Can it be shown that such a system significantly impacts the availability of arms to criminals, and that this reduction in arms drives a corresponding reduction in over all criminal activity and severity, for example? If such a thing can be shown then the argument that BGCs are a valid and necessary government function can be made. If such a societal benefit cannot be shown, then is not the entire edifice solely predicated on implicitly denying the exercise of this right to the people who cannot afford to pay it? Ergo it is indeed a denial of a right by design and principle, even if it is not so broad as to cover everyone, only those who cannot afford to pay (in that moment or in general, it does not matter). If it has no other societal purpose can it be anything but?

A fee to vote "poll tax", was adjudicated as a right denied. Liberals claim the requirement to produce identification, which is very costly these days, is also an implicit denial. All similar to your arguments above.
Quibble with USMC all you want, you're arguing principle, he's swinging a bat named "reality."
I miss the days of meeting up somewhere, shaking hands and slamming trunk lids.

 

[Unicykle]

If they wanted to speed things up they make a portal where after the 4473 the FFL could simply verify that the CHL was valid and hand it over. That would probably lighten the load on the system by 10 or 15%

 

[Koda]

If they wanted to speed things up they make a portal where after the 4473 the FFL could simply verify that the CHL was valid and hand it over. That would probably lighten the load on the system by 10 or 15%

Iirc, thats been proposed over the years but the Democrats always shoot that down.

 

[orygun]

At one point in time there was a waiting period, unless you were in possession of a valid CHL, then you bought it and walked.

 

[RedneckRampage]

If they wanted to speed things up they make a portal where after the 4473 the FFL could simply verify that the CHL was valid and hand it over. That would probably lighten the load on the system by 10 or 15%

I have always thought the best thing they could ever do is a Federal "license", where anyone could put your number in and get a yes or no (for private party and FFL deals), this would make it legal for you to by in all 50 states. At anytime, they could switch your yes to a no.

 

[lucusloc]

I have always thought the best thing they could ever do is a Federal "license", where anyone could put your number in and get a yes or no (for private party and FFL deals), this would make it legal for you to by in all 50 states. At anytime, they could switch your yes to a no.

Yeah, the proposed BIDS system was pretty similar to that. It used regular IDs like a DL#, plus your name an addy to generate the go/no go response. Since it was just a phone number to call you could have used it for anything; guns, a truck full of fertilizer and diesel for some guys "farm", renting your spare room to that guy you met at the bar for a week, or whatever else you might want to know the answer to "is this a prohibited person?"

It got shot down by the gun control crowd, because despite being a UBC law it was actually far easier to deal with than the current NICS system; it was free, fast, efficient and could not be traced to anything, let alone a specific gun. What you are proposing will never be passed, because the actual goal of these systems is not what they claim it is; they want obstruction, not BGCs. The BGC is just the means to an ulterior end.